Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

seattlenerd writes "The 2003 Nebula Awards were awarded late Saturday night in Seattle (for the first time ever) by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. Winners: The Speed of Dark by Elizabeth Moon, Coraline by Neil Gaiman, "The Empire of Ice Cream" by Jeffrey Ford, "What I Didn't See" by Karen Joy Fowler (the previous two both published on the SCI FICTION site), and the script for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Noteworthy were comments made by GrandMaster honoree Robert Silverberg and Harlan Ellison, who introduced Silverberg, along with guest speaker Rick Rashid of Microsoft Research. To say nothing of Cory Doctorow's acceptance speech he didn't get to make, but has made available for "alternate historians."" I was at Penguicon this weekend, along with Neil Gaiman - congrats to him on the win, and to all the others.

I picked up this book, expecting an original and exciting story. Instead I got a patronising modern-day Alice in Wonderland with a simplistic and unchallenging story, two dimensional charicatures for characters and a boringly predictable plot. It had no point. Try Darren Shan, Anthony Horowitz or Frank Cotteral Boyce instead.

Hmm...I think American Gods is better Gaiman book. Neverwhere was adapted from a BBC miniseries he wrote, and while enjoyable, it ended up a bit too loose, it even ends with sequel bait. The plot is straightforward, but it feels like the setting is the star of the show. American Gods, while it has a couple of long digressions, has a stronger showing I think.

That said, I've read a lot of Gaiman, so whats vaguely uninteresting to me, may be new to other readers.

Nebulas are given for works released during the previous year (i.e., the 2003 awards go to 2002 works, etc.) When the work was written doesn't matter -- remember these are primarily literary awards, and it's not uncommon for a book to take several years to be written, and then several more to be published. (I would assume the same is true of scripts, in general, though of course LOTR is kind of a special case.) For those interested in the process, it works like this:

At any time, a SFWA member may nominate a work published a year ago or less at the time of nomination.

At the end of the year, works with sufficient numbers of nominations are placed on the preliminary Nebula ballot.

Early in the following year, SFWA membership votes on the works on the preliminary ballot; in each category, up to a certain maximum number of works -- 5, IIRC, but don't quote me -- are qualified for the final ballot.

The membership then votes on the works on the final ballot, and the awards are determined.

This being science fiction writing, you'll notice there is no "Profit!!!" step in the list. Er, unless you're Peter Jackson. <1/2 g>

So this is why it takes so long, and why the 2003 awards are given for 2002 works in 2004.

And while the actual visual/acting aspects of the scenes are well-scripted, the storyline is obviously not original.

Does "script" cound as just the acting cues etc, or is storyline included. I'd imagine that the latter has a seperate award - but if that isn't the case then it doesn't make much sense for a book-based-movie to win a script award?

There are so few good sf movies realeased in a given year that splitting the award into 'Original' and 'Adapted' like the Oscars, would result in frequent years where some piece of crap won, or no award was given.

Also, some people have noticed some differences between the books and the movies...

There's got to be a reason, because if time of authoring wasn't factored in then the Hitchhiker's Guide would have taken EVERY award, even the award for "best musical set to the beat of a tribal drum!"

It's just one of a long line of inappropriate awards dished out to LotR.

Remember, this trilogy includes an Oscar under its belt for best editing. Read that again: the (complete) film is twelve and a half hours long. And it apparently was the best edited film in 2003. Does this make any sense? What was it before they edited it, twelve and a half days long?

I understand it's taken a certain amount of the popular imagination, and introduced children who would have just got the book and never ventured into a

Editing isn't just taking x hours of film and reducing it by 90%, any more than sculpture is just taking a big rock and reducing it by 90%. When to use a slower pace of cuts or a faster one, when to wchoose a better 'emotional' result over a better 'technical' one, tying the rhythmn of shots to the score, which montage of shots, etc.

"If I wanted to be frivolous, I might say that everything that precedes editing is merely a way of producing film to edit." - Stanley Kubrick (Some of his movies sure could

Remember, this trilogy includes an Oscar under its belt for best editing. Read that again: the (complete) film is twelve and a half hours long. And it apparently was the best edited film in 2003. Does this make any sense? What was it before they edited it, twelve and a half days long?

I believe they were working from at least a week of raw footage, yes. On any film you're going to have a LOT more stuff shot than will find its way into the final product.

Given how much the movie differed from the novel, I'm disappointed this was recognised.

When I was in the theater the first time seeing the movie, I thought.."This feels like The Two Towers, but I don't quite remember it this way...". So i re-read the novel. I was frustrated by the end of it -- so many departures, supposedly for 'dramatic pacing' and 'constraints of the medium'...what a bunch of horsepucky!

They're just angling to get a Nebula award for best fantasy writing. They would have tried for a Hugo, but Scientology is already trying for one with their fantasy retro-history about how Elron Hubbard invented science-fiction. And since Hugos are awarded by fans, they figured they didn't stand a chance against all the Battlefield Earth fans block-voting.

I read Coraline for the first time this weekend. The book says it's for ages 8 and up, but this would have freaked the hell out of me when I was that young. It is definitely worth picking up if you like Gaiman's other stuff.

Agreed. I think Neil Gaiman is necessary reading for anyone who claims to enjoy science fiction. American Gods was one of the best novels I've read in a long time. This was one of the few instances when the New York Times Bestsellers lived up to the expectations.

The audio cd is phenomenal. Look for it used. If you don't want to pay full price. The author reads it really, really well. There is some spooky haunting music that accompanies it. Very nice and worth the effort to track it down. It is unabridged as well.
See Coraline CD [UNABRIDGED] [amazon.com]

Oh, I have no doubt that he's a lot easier to deal with in person. I've known him online for several years but never met him; OTOH, people I do know in person and whose opinions I respect say he's really a very nice guy. But his online persona strikes me as clever but, well, bratty, and not in a cute way.

I took it the other way. It is that the artist called himself out. In a way, after winning a Hugo (already recognized once) it's not out of the ordinary to imagine himself having won another award.

It's embarrassing enough that he thought that he could have won, but couldn't make it anyway. But to go as far as finding someone to read the acceptance speach by proxy...and then NOT win. My goodness. Well may as well tell the whole world himself.

There's something sort of arrogant about publishing your acceptance speech when you didn't even win.

I think he just really wish he could have said "holy fuck, I've won a Nebula" after winning a Nebula. And thank the people who have helped him, which deserve thanking either way. It is weird on the face of it, but I'm not seeing the arrogance.

I'd love to win a Grammy for my music, but I'm not expecting to, so I sure as hell wouldn't write and publish an acceptance speech.

But if you were nominated for a Grammy, like he was nominated for a Nebula, you'd sure as hell write an acceptance speech, and arrange for someone to give it for you if you couldn't make the ceremony. So "arrogant" is the wrong word. I'd suggest "normal" as a better word.

Ooh! I once got nominated for an award that I didn't win. [locusmag.com] (Other Fan Achievement, woo!) I never told anyone what I would have said, so can I call Cory arrogant, please?:^) (Just kidding Cory. A Nebula nomination is no small deal.)

Congratulations to not only a great author, but also a great person.
If you don't beleive me, read his journal at: http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/journal.asp
Keep up the good work with your journal Mr Gaiman, in these dire times of terror attacks and economic instability, your journal gives us poor lost souls an interesting and inspiring reading and above all, hope.

For those who hasn't done so already, please consider reading American Gods and the Sandman stories they are great:)

I recently finished a piece of horror-fiction, Michael Gruber's Tropic of Night, whose literary quality was high enough not to require the reader to make allowances for the genre. In my experience, such a requirement is a pervasive shortcoming of both the horror and sci-fi fields.

If there are astute slashDot readers out there who understand my lament, and who know an elusive sci-fi title (or two) that does manage the rare crossover, please identify.

I have to say, though, that if your opinion of SF is so low that you think only " an elusive sci-fi title (or two)" will make your cut, I'm not terribly optimistic. As someone who reads (and writes) mostly SF but does read a fair amount of other fiction, I'm of the opinion that the crap-to-good-stuff ratio is pretty much equal no matter what section of the bookstore you're browsing. A lot of readers, OTOH, tend to mark down a book simply because it is SF, rather than judging it fairly on its merits. If you're one of them, nothing I or anyone else says is going to help you.

I have to say, though, that if your opinion of SF is so low that you think only " an elusive sci-fi title (or two)" will make your cut, I'm not terribly optimistic.

My point's not all that elitist. "Great" sci-fi (e.g., Arthur C. Clarke) is usually so deemed for its scientific perspicacity/creativity...but is (understandably) lacking in the enteratining and/or engaging qualities we tend to demand from "genre-less" fiction. But, very occasionally, a book holds its own in both arenas. Any dearth of such

Well moviepig, I'd hope you're not being elitist since you have a spelling error in your post.;)

Anyway, when you read 'genre-less' (whatever that means) stuff, what do you look for? Are you a characterization guy, er, pig? Can great prose cover all the sins in your world? Do you like Deep Thoughts on Big Ideas? You can always hit rec.arts.sf.written on Usenet or Google groups and say "I like AB&C for their XY&Z qualities, who else writes like that?" They'll be able to give specific and pro

Not if this is still the 1950s. What are you, a time traveller? The "big three" of the '50s and '60s were Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein, yes. But we've come a long way since then (baby). The sixties introduced the first major "literary" movement in the F&SF genre(s), the "New Wave", and gave us Bradbury, Vonnegut and others, whose literary credentials are, I think, unchallenged. While the older, "pulp" style is still around and going strong, the descendents of the

moviepig.com writes: If there are astute slashDot readers out there who understand my lament, and who know an elusive sci-fi title (or two) that does manage the rare crossover, please identify.

Take a look at some of the books Robert Silverberg wrote in the 1970's; some of them are "Dying Inside," "Son of Man," and "Thorns" -- they are little gems. You have to ignore the dates in SF of that age (the "future" is now, at least chronologically speaking) but there were some interesting people writing interes

The first is more sci-fi / noir, although there are some Very bloody torture and violence scenes. Broken Angels is more a sci-fi war story, with elements of vodun thrown in with slow death from radiation.

Both very good, both horrific in their own way. I've never made any allowances for either book based on it's genere.

Try William Gibson, Bruce Sterling, Mikhail Bulgakov (I think "The Master and Margarita" qualifies as sci-fi, and it's amazing, ask literally any Russian, if they've read at all they will have read it, and I haven't met anyone who hasn't liked it), Douglas Adams, Stephen Donaldson (OK, he tends to try real hard to make his stuff really unpleasant but his prose is great, "Daughter of Regals is a little more positive), Michael Crichton (hit or miss on the plots, but his better stuff is well written), Clifford

For those that don't know Last Dangerous Visions is the Duke Nukem Forever [3drealms.com] of the science-fiction world. Only it's been going on a hell of a lot longer, and generated more all around bad feelings [islets.net]. (And on the Interweb almost nothing is gone forever, so here's the flame [lysator.liu.se] talked about.)

If you follow the nebulas, you might be interested to see the recently announced shortlist for the other big SciFi awards, the Hugos:

http://www.noreascon.org/hugos/nominees.html

The Hugos are voted for by the attendees/supporters of the World Science Fiction Convention, whereas the Nebulas are voted on by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, in case you were wondering what the difference is.

When it was announced on PEELified that Futurama was to be nominated for another award (2 years after cancellation now) we were surprised to see that it was in the same category as LOTR and 3 other films, "Best Script".

Does this not show the high-quality of the show, being able to be nominated in the same category as 4 other films? Of course, we weren't surprised when it was beaten by LOTR, but it was reassuring that, try as they might, FOX can't ruin the show's brilliance and reputation.

It's good to see Jeffrey Ford get some more recognition. I really enjoyed his novels; The Well Built City Trilogy (consisting of The Physiognomy, Memoranda, and The Beyond) and The Portrait of Mrs. Charburque. All of which are bizarre surreal fantasies. Don't expect anything like Tolkien. I think a link to Empire of Ice Cream may have been posted on slashdot before, but here [scifi.com] it is again. He also has an excellent short story collection, The Fantasy Writers Assistant and Other Stories [amazon.com]. And a few of the stories are actually SF.:-)